bulogo66000.jpg

IM with the one I love, calling the one you're with


(There is a hook for a country song in that title, I am certain). Call it the Interpersonal Divide: One professor suggests that technology threatens face-to-face communication. Excuse me, but the sky is not falling ... ok, so I admit to pondering if cell phones here on campus aren't equipped with some sort of OCDS (Out of Classroom Detection System): Once out the door, the unit flips open, gets two hits with the thumb, and immediately attaches itself to the ear of the student who then begins the common 'whatzup' litany.

"Rapidly, we are believing that someone somewhere else is more important than the person that we are with," said Michael Bugeja, professor and director of the Greenlee School of Journalism and Communication at Iowa State University. "You see this all the time with cell phones." Only eight of the 116 students polled by The Daily said they did not own a cell phone. The extensive use of electronic devices has many people concerned that the value in person-to-person communications is nearly lost, Bugeja said. In his book, "Interpersonal Divide: The Search for Community in a Technological Age," Bugeja argues that the overuse of these devices has created an "interpersonal divide" between people.

There may be something to what Bugeja has to say...However, remember that radio did not replace newspapers, television did not replace radio, the Internet has not replaced television, and literally 'reaching out and touching someone' has not been replaced by cell phones. Communication (interpersonal or otherwise) is different with cell phones...it was different when a distant generation embraced the telephone for the first time, however, people will still connect in face-to-face and online communities...and please, let's abandon the phrase 'virtual community'..."virtuals" don't talk to one another, people do!


|

Comments

This is a response to Paul Chenoweth's argument that "radio did not replace newspapers, television has not replaced radio, the Internet has not replaced television, etc."

This argument no longer holds and is researched at length in my book:

1. Never before have the devices been so powerful.
2. Never before has the technology been so converged.
3. Never before has the media environment been so expanded.
4. Never before have the media companies been so influential as ecosystems.
5. Never before has journalism been so downsized and profit-minded (See www.stateofthemedia.org")

Mine is not an argument against technology; mine is an argument against marketing, which has to isolate a person to target him or her, which is why MTV is coming soon to a cell phone near and why students will be sitting on the campus green alone watching television at a premium rate.

My book also documents the cumulative impact of radio, television, print, Internet and more--not only in the hours watched but the monthly bills--and the influence on our conscience and consciousness.

Finally, a virtual community is just that--virtual. People do talk in a virtual environment, but the medium filters out interpersonal factors that people need to understand each other without too much misinterpretation.

That said, if we were having this conversation in person, it would be interactive. You would hear my voice rather than "hear" my text, along with other interpersonal cues. And the physical surroundings where we would have such a conversation in real habitat would dictate the voice tones we would use. We'd use one tone in an office, another at a restaurant, and another on a park bench.

That interpersonal knowledge, which people possess out of practice, is what is at stake in this new high-tech media milieu and why it is important that at least one book by a journalist make a case against marketing of technology rather than against the tools themselves.

It appears that I struck a nerve with professor Bugeja. His passion for the disappearance of interpersonal knowlege and communication sounds far too much like a pulpit pounding preacher trying to convince his congregation that all sex is bad and that it should simply 'go away'....'not gonna happen! Regardless of the amount of research that professor Bugeja has done, I'd bet a cup of coffee that even in Iowa he can still find a newspaper, an FM radio station, a network affiliate television station, and broadband access to the Internet. As each of these 'new' technologies hit the market there was an impact on the previously dominant technology, but none of these technologies have replaced the other, (ok, so the telegraph rests in pieces on the back seat of the bus...it has been replaced). I will not argue that each of these technologies (and the distractions associated with them) have had an impact on interpersonal communications and that we are witnessing more and more convergence of various communication delivery technologies. Interpersonal communications are not the same today as the 'Leave it to Beaver' years when the dining room table was a dominant interpersoanl communication skill development classroom...and I fully agree that since that era (and probably several generations before), interpersonal communications have evolved. But here is a flash: interpersonal comunications will not likely revert back to Beaver's 'awww, geeee Wally" days. This generation of students have not abandoned casual conversation across a coffee table, but have embraced the possibility of expanding conversations to a more global scale. And yes, there are sacrifices in the quality of those text based conversations (both the table and the cell are affected), but to somehow believe that technologies will destroy interpersonal communications is to believe that my pulpit pounding preacher will some day find himself in front of an empty room because his congregation accepted the idea that all sex is bad. If professor Bugeja wants to demonize marketing as the curse of interpersonal communication's demise, then I am all for him...but allow some time between rants at today's marketing evil empire to write a letter using a quill pen...and good luck at finding a Pony Express rider to deliver the message.

You have touched no nerve. You simply touched a keyboard--and poorly, at that.

If bloggers are ever to be respected, research notwithstanding, misrepresentation notwithstanding, then they will learn to do the most basic journalistic thing: spell a person's name correctly: B-U-G-E-J-A.

I've saved this page and your latest response for a future article in my technology column on why so many blogs are disrespected and how bloggers--especially ones affiliated with a university, as you are--need to set a standard, beginning with the correct spelling of a person's name ... which we in Iowa call Journalism 101.

My sincere apologies for the mispelling of your name, Professor Bugeja...no offense intended. I have a lifetime of empathy for what that means. I have made those corrections in my earlier comments in full public display...something that I know is also taught in journalism 101 (I have witnessed such corrections buried on the back pages of newpapers for years).

Thanks, Paul